World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
55
Citations
9982
World Ranking
4438
National Ranking
246

Penelope Schofield publication distribution in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Psychology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Penelope Schofield sits on this spectrum.

31–40 publications: 6 scientists 41–50 publications: 52 scientists 51–60 publications: 138 scientists 61–70 publications: 299 scientists 71–80 publications: 461 scientists 81–90 publications: 605 scientists 91–100 publications: 713 scientists 101–110 publications: 736 scientists 111–120 publications: 686 scientists 121–130 publications: 670 scientists 131–140 publications: 644 scientists 141–150 publications: 597 scientists 151–160 publications: 576 scientists 161–170 publications: 477 scientists 171–180 publications: 450 scientists 181–190 publications: 397 scientists 191–200 publications: 343 scientists 201–210 publications: 328 scientists 211–220 publications: 313 scientists 221–230 publications: 283 scientists 231–240 publications: 226 scientists 241–250 publications: 196 scientists 251–260 publications: 201 scientists 261–270 publications: 171 scientists 271–280 publications: 151 scientists 281–290 publications: 139 scientists 291–300 publications: 113 scientists 301–310 publications: 102 scientists 311–320 publications: 100 scientists 321–330 publications: 76 scientists 331–340 publications: 92 scientists 341–350 publications: 85 scientists 351–360 publications: 69 scientists 361–370 publications: 71 scientists 371–380 publications: 63 scientists 381–390 publications: 58 scientists 391–400 publications: 57 scientists 401–410 publications: 43 scientists 411–420 publications: 33 scientists 421–430 publications: 50 scientists 431–440 publications: 41 scientists 441–450 publications: 32 scientists 451–460 publications: 27 scientists 461–470 publications: 28 scientists 471–480 publications: 25 scientists 481–490 publications: 28 scientists 491–500 publications: 20 scientists 501–510 publications: 23 scientists 511–520 publications: 26 scientists 521–530 publications: 17 scientists 531–540 publications: 21 scientists 541–550 publications: 14 scientists 551–560 publications: 16 scientists 561–570 publications: 10 scientists 571–580 publications: 22 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 14 scientists 601–610 publications: 9 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 4 scientists 631–640 publications: 7 scientists 641–650 publications: 5 scientists 651–660 publications: 10 scientists 661–670 publications: 8 scientists 671–680 publications: 8 scientists 681–690 publications: 4 scientists 691–700 publications: 3 scientists 701–704 publications: 4 scientists 705+ publications: 100 scientists
31 publications 705+

This scientist: 188 publications — 65th percentile

65% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 705 publications or more.

Penelope Schofield D-index placement in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Psychology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Penelope Schofield sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 398 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 702 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 671 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 659 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 641 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 671 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 617 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 558 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 495 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 487 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 445 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 390 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 408 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 345 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 325 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 321 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 248 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 290 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 218 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 219 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 215 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 183 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 169 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 132 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 137 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 120 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 112 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 86 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 101 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 83 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 77 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 70 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 78 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 58 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 53 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 57 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 48 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 53 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 46 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 24 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 35 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 27 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 32 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 31 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 22 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 16 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 24 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 18 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 11 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 19 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 10 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 16 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 10 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 12 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 8 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 5 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 12 scientists 144+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 144+

This scientist: 55 D-Index — 63rd percentile

63% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 144 D-Index or more.

Overview

Penelope Schofield is affiliated with Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, contributing extensively to the field of medicine, with a particular focus on oncology. Their research output includes 128 publications within medicine, with 43 specifically addressing oncology. Additional subfields of study include general health professions, sociology and political science, public health, environmental and occupational health, as well as psychiatry and mental health.

The key research topics covered in their work include:

  • Cancer survivorship and care
  • Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Family Support in Illness
  • Tumors and Oncological Cases
  • Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

Recent representative papers by Penelope Schofield include:

  • "Translation and back-translation methodology in health research - a critique," 2020, Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
  • "Patient-Centered Care: Transforming the Health Care System in Vietnam With Support of Digital Health Technology," 2021, Journal of Medical Internet Research
  • "Effectiveness of online communication skills training for cancer and palliative care health professionals: A systematic review," 2021, Psycho-Oncology
  • "Posttraumatic growth as a buffer and a vulnerability for psychological distress in mothers who are breast cancer survivors," 2020, Journal of Affective Disorders
  • "Training oncology physicians to advise their patients on complementary and integrative medicine: An implementation study for a manual-guided consultation," 2020, Cancer

The venues where Penelope Schofield frequently publishes highlight their focus and collaborative networks. These include:

  • Psycho-Oncology
  • Supportive Care in Cancer
  • BMJ Open
  • Patient Education and Counseling
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology

Collaborations form a notable aspect of their academic activity, with frequent co-authors being:

  • Ilona Juraskova
  • Linda Mileshkin
  • Nilmini Wickramasinghe
  • Thu Ha Dang
  • Richard W. Tothill

Best Publications

  • Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard radiotherapy in stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (TROG 09.02 CHISEL): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial

    David Ball;David Ball;G Tao Mai;Shalini Vinod;Scott Babington

  • Psychological responses of patients receiving a diagnosis of cancer

    P. E. Schofield;P. N. Butow;J. F. Thompson;M. H. N. Tattersall

  • How to recognize and manage psychological distress in cancer patients.

    Holly Ryan;P. Schofield;Jill Cockburn;P. Butow

  • Mapping the quality of life and unmet needs of urban women with metastatic breast cancer

    S Aranda;P Schofield;L Weih;P Yates

  • Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma

    Nico van Zandwijk;Christopher Clarke;Douglas Henderson;A William Musk

  • Translation and back-translation methodology in health research - a critique.

    Uldis Ozolins;Sandra Hale;Xiang Cheng;Amelia Hyatt

  • Nonpharmacologic Strategies for Managing Common Chemotherapy Adverse Effects: A Systematic Review

    Kerryann Lotfi-Jam;Mariko Carey;Michael Jefford;Penelope Schofield

  • Survivorship issues following treatment completion--results from focus groups with Australian cancer survivors and health professionals.

    Michael Jefford;Michael Jefford;Emily Karahalios;Annabel Pollard;Carl Baravelli

  • Desire for hastened death in patients with advanced disease and the evidence base of clinical guidelines: a systematic review

    Peter L Hudson;Linda Kristjanson;Michael Ashby;Brian Kelly

  • 'Would you like to talk about your future treatment options'? Discussing the transition from curative cancer treatment to palliative care.

    Penelope Schofield;Mariko Carey;Anthony Love;Caroline Nehill

  • Effectively discussing complementary and alternative medicine in a conventional oncology setting: communication recommendations for clinicians.

    Penelope Schofield;Justine Diggens;Catherine Charleson;Rita Marigliani

  • Increasing oncologists' skills in eliciting and responding to emotional cues: evaluation of a communication skills training program

    Phyllis Butow;Jill Cockburn;Afaf Girgis;Deborah Bowman

  • The relationship between unmet needs and distress amongst young people with cancer

    Gavin J Dyson;Kate Thompson;Susan Palmer;David M Thomas

  • Hearing the bad news of a cancer diagnosis: The Australian melanoma patient's perspective

    P. E. Schofield;L. J. Beeney;J. F. Thompson;P. N. Butow

  • Importance of health literacy in oncology.

    Kelvin Koay;Penelope Schofield;Penelope Schofield;Michael Jefford;Michael Jefford

  • Experiences and unmet needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people with cancer care: A systematic review and meta‐synthesis

    Karolina Lisy;Micah D J Peters;Penelope Schofield;Penelope Schofield;Penelope Schofield;Michael Jefford;Michael Jefford

  • The views of bowel cancer survivors and health care professionals regarding survivorship care plans and post treatment follow up

    Carl Baravelli;Meinir Krishnasamy;Carmel Pezaro;Penelope Schofield;Penelope Schofield

  • Development and pilot testing of a nurse-led posttreatment support package for bowel cancer survivors.

    Michael Jefford;Kerryann Lotfi-Jam;Carl Baravelli;Suzi M Grogan

  • Responding to desire to die statements from patients with advanced disease: recommendations for health professionals.

    Peter L Hudson;Penelope Schofield;Penelope Schofield;Brian Kelly;Rosalie Hudson

  • A bridge between cultures: interpreters’ perspectives of consultations with migrant oncology patients

    Phyllis N Butow;Elizabeth A Lobb;Michael Jefford;David Goldstein

  • Barriers to the provision of evidence-based psychosocial care in oncology.

    Penelope Schofield;Mariko Carey;Billie Bonevski;Rob Sanson-Fisher

  • Predicting attempts and sustained cessation of smoking after the introduction of workplace smoking bans.

    Ron Borland;Neville Owen;David Hill;Penelope Schofield

Frequent Co-Authors

Phyllis Butow
Phyllis Butow University of Sydney
Jane Turner
Jane Turner University of Queensland
Afaf Girgis
Afaf Girgis University of New South Wales
Rob Sanson-Fisher
Rob Sanson-Fisher University of Newcastle Australia
Suzanne K. Chambers
Suzanne K. Chambers University of Technology Sydney
David Goldstein
David Goldstein University of New South Wales
John F. Seymour
John F. Seymour Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
Madeleine King
Madeleine King University of Sydney
Thomas F. Hack
Thomas F. Hack University of Manitoba
David D.L. Bowtell
David D.L. Bowtell Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Exploring a career in psychology or counseling opens a wide range of opportunities, especially with the growing accessibility of online degrees. Many students are drawn to counseling as a career path due to its vital role in mental health and its meaningful impact on communities.

One key consideration for prospective students is affordability. Those looking for affordable counseling programs in Pennsylvania can find reputable options that fit a variety of budgets. Similarly, students interested in urban environments might focus on locating the cheapest counseling degrees in Philadelphia or explore affordable counseling programs in Pittsburgh.

Beyond Pennsylvania, the Midwest also offers budget-friendly choices, with affordable counseling degrees in Saint Louis gaining popularity among students pursuing online programs.

As you consider your academic options, think about program accreditation, flexibility, and long-term career support. Online degrees make it easier than ever to access quality education while controlling costs—helping future counselors achieve their career goals efficiently.

Best Scientists Citing Penelope Schofield

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles